I'm off te exercise my 2nd Amendment Right!

Posted in the Weird Forum

Comments (Page 34)

Showing posts 661 - 680 of1,061
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#798
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I'm becoming bored dealing with him. He never shuts up even when he's been proven wrong. He has recently tried a couple of new tactics, which I admit to suggesting, but they were easy enough to figure out as well.
He tried the sympathy tact, and the "all bull aside" tact.
I think I'm going to move on to a less troll infested thread.
Iím not sure I would consider tallyho a troll. Uneducated perhaps. Fact resistant for sure and bull headed.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#799
Dec 10, 2012
 
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
have you ever wondered why there are 9 justices ??
and I do believe a president has a limitation of appointees and remember they have to be approved by Congress
but we don't live in a dictatorship ... may seem that way but we don't ... proof Prohibition was enacted and repealed
Has there always been nine justices?

There is no limitation on how many replacements the president can nominate.

The sad part, the ďfactsĒ you attempt to spew about the US Constitution are easily referenced.

US Constitution Article II Section 2 see http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/artic...

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,*****judges of the Supreme Court*****, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law:****but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper****, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#800
Dec 10, 2012
 
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
Attempting to use another word you donít understand? How exactly do you apply aggregator to this thread?
you are missing a post , just like you asked me to do..

for openers

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#801
Dec 10, 2012
 
Aggregator refers to a web site or computer software that aggregates a specific type of information from multiple online sources:

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#802
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Nancy Botwin wrote:
<quoted text>
Because we have, in this country, guaranteed by the Constitution, this thing called DUE PROCESS, which is one of the cornerstones of American jurisprudence. There is also the question of PRESUMED INNOCENT which is addressed by 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments and Coffin v. United States. There is more to life than money. Would you tear down the Constitution to save money? If the U.S. abandons the basics of the Constitution, how does that make us any different than some banana republic? Letting a patient, any patient die, would go against a physicians ethics. A physician who intentionally fails to save a patient's life when able to do so may be guilty of some form of culpable homicide. That's the law.
The problem with your argument is simple. If they neglected to treat the wounds sustained immediately would that in itself be a violation of due process? Remember, he was shot in defense of others. It was a legal shoot.

Being innocent and presumption of innocence are two different things. There couldnít be a presumption of innocence when the man is shot during the commission of a crime. The man was guilty. Have you read the accounts? Thereís no possible presumption of innocence.

A physician isnít required to save someoneís life if that individual isnít under their care. Donít assume because there may be a moral requirement doesnít mean thereís a legal requirement.

Was there a physician on scene? If not, how does your point apply?

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#803
Dec 10, 2012
 
Tiger Lilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Great post!!!
No one should be a combination of police officer, judge and jury, all in the name of the all mighty dollar.......
Wouldnít be in name of the almighty dollar in the case presented. The case at hand was Fort Hood. Read the story and decide how the almighty dollar was involved http://abcnews.go.com/WN/fort-hood-officer-ki...

If someone breaks into my home, or yours. We have the legal right to use deadly force. Wouldnít you then in fact be playing the roles of judge and jury? Add to that executioner.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#804
Dec 10, 2012
 
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
hell simple .... SIMPLE ......don't respond , but you just learned about some of the supreme court..
From you? Youíre unable to grasp the simplest of concepts of the US Constitution.

Level 9

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#805
Dec 10, 2012
 
Hey tallyho - "there are none so blind as those who refuse to see." You'd be better off banging your head against a brick wall.
In some people's minds the weapon is at fault, not the person holding it. They think that if there were no guns, less people would die. They don't add in that when someone wants to kill - they use whatever is convenient.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#806
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Nancy Botwin wrote:
<quoted text>
"however..... the right to refuse medical treatment is universally recognized as a fundamental principle of liberty"
ROFLMAO! THIS IS BS! This "right" that is being talked about is the RIGHT OF THE PATIENT TO REFUSE TREATMENT...NOT A DOCTOR.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1...
(Pssst... your totalitarian fascism is showing) Have you not heard of EMTALA?
"In 1986, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act
(EMTALA) was enacted as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985....
"If a hospital determines that the person has an emergency medical condition, it must provide treatment to stabilize the condition or provide for an appropriate transfer to another facility." **
http://www.emtala.com/062001.pdf
**Regardless of status or ability to pay.
Doh....BUSTED AGAIN
Regardless of ability to pay. Very true. But, if a physician is simply nearby they are not required to intervene. Thatís what we were discussing in the Fort Hood scenario. Realty is you nor I know if there was a physician present.

It was stated it would have been better to simply not treat Hassanís injuries. I concur. Would that be moral? Probably not. Given his injuries a small delay probably would have been fatal. Even immediate response using the technology of even 30 years ago he probably wouldnít have survived.

Often laws and morality are not tied to each other. Just because something is immoral doesnít mean it should be illegal. And, back to your initial comment on this it certainly wouldnít be a violation of his due process rights.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#807
Dec 10, 2012
 
tallyho wrote:
INFO: Nancy Botwin, TVís worst mom?- Salon.com
Tuesday, Jul 19, 2011 7:45 PM UTC Nancy Botwin, TVís worst mom? In Season 7, we're less inclined to believe that the "Weeds
you are welcome ...
Tell me you donít honestly believe what happens on some idiotic television show is important. Iíll watch the news, Iíll watch a ball game, Iíll even watch some non-fictional documentary programming. Just finished with ďThe Men Who Built AmericaĒ. Interesting piece http://www.history.com/shows/men-who-built-am... Wish I had started it sooner, sat on my DVR for a month or so. I seldom watch the television.

I will not watch mindless fictional programming on television.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#808
Dec 10, 2012
 
Tiger Lilly wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is one reason I often don't post on threads like this one. It's not that can't provide the links but I would much rather post some YouTube tune and just have fun.
Also you can provide the most well thought out post and some poster will pick out a typo or go after just a couple of the posted words or make up some lie about a persons RW life.
Cricket sounds, wonder what happened to Slack......
Normally I donít bother with offbeat. Seldom is there a serious discussion. I believe the Second Amendment is worthy of serious discussion.

There's nothing wrong with having some fun. There's also a time for serious discussion.

“WE WON TOPIX! YAY!”

Since: Jun 09

Hoffman Estates, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#809
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
Regardless of ability to pay. Very true. But, if a physician is simply nearby they are not required to intervene. Thatís what we were discussing in the Fort Hood scenario. Realty is you nor I know if there was a physician present.
It was stated it would have been better to simply not treat Hassanís injuries. I concur. Would that be moral? Probably not. Given his injuries a small delay probably would have been fatal. Even immediate response using the technology of even 30 years ago he probably wouldnít have survived.
Often laws and morality are not tied to each other. Just because something is immoral doesnít mean it should be illegal. And, back to your initial comment on this it certainly wouldnít be a violation of his due process rights.
Please don't take this the wrong way but, urineidiot.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#810
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

tallyho wrote:
huuuuuuuuuuum wonder where 749# went??
poof
It's right here
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
Making up stories again? Even if your spew is true, I donít care. It doesnít excuse your childish behavior.
I never attacked your mother. I simply said ďWhy not? It degraded you, not meĒ.
Report me, I donít care. Iíve had a few posts removed over the years. They were far more aggressive than what was posted in this thread. Iím still here.
Someone on this thread was saying you claimed to be a marine. Really? Iíve never met a whiney marine.
Still doesn't excuse your childish behavior.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#811
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

now you are missing a post you dared me to get pulled , poof it is gone ,

the rest of your post is just that crap you are pissed... guess what ha ha ha

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>Please don't take this the wrong way but, urineidiot.
Nothing you say annoys me. Iíve encountered you in other threads. What you say is meaningless.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#813
Dec 10, 2012
 
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
Has there always been nine justices?
There is no limitation on how many replacements the president can nominate.
The sad part, the ďfactsĒ you attempt to spew about the US Constitution are easily referenced.
US Constitution Article II Section 2 see http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/artic...
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,*****judges of the Supreme Court*****, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law:****but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper****, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
no there wasn't always nine

read : judges of the Supreme Court*****, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law:****

2 per term , per term so the president can really get 4 in total... so there for nine justices now

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#815
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

tallyho wrote:
now you are missing a post you dared me to get pulled , poof it is gone ,
the rest of your post is just that crap you are pissed... guess what ha ha ha
I really donít care. It further illustrates how childish you are.

Why would I be pissed at you? Do you really think I take anything you post seriously?

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#816
Dec 10, 2012
 
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me you donít honestly believe what happens on some idiotic television show is important. Iíll watch the news, Iíll watch a ball game, Iíll even watch some non-fictional documentary programming. Just finished with ďThe Men Who Built AmericaĒ. Interesting piece http://www.history.com/shows/men-who-built-am... Wish I had started it sooner, sat on my DVR for a month or so. I seldom watch the television.
I will not watch mindless fictional programming on television.
please read , I don't watch that crap , just used the definition of the character , you know of which you lack

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#817
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
It's right here
<quoted text>
Still doesn't excuse your childish behavior.
are you missing a thread , your icons/and senseless comments for the most part aren't childish . and your very presence here now suggest your schoolyard attitude

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#818
Dec 10, 2012
 
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
no there wasn't always nine
read : judges of the Supreme Court*****, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law:****
2 per term , per term so the president can really get 4 in total... so there for nine justices now
If all 9 died or resigned the president would be within his constitutional duties to nominate 9 more. I give you the relevant portion of the US Constitution. I give you a link to the full constitution completely annotated for your reading pleasure and still you canít grasp the meaning.

Where do you see 2? Article II or Section 2? Wow. Youíre amazing.

Why are there nine? Several reasons come to mind. First and odd number may have been chosen to prevent a tie. Second, the more justices there are the less likely a sitting president can achieve undue influence on the court. Since theyíre all lifetime appointments one would expect very little change during a sitting presidents two terms.

1789 6
1801 5
1802 6
1807 7
1837 9
1863 10
1866 7
1867 8
1869 9

Congress controls the number of justices. Congress has changed the number to prevent a sitting president to appoint justices, as in the case of Andrew Johnson. Recall Andrew Johnson was impeached.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 661 - 680 of1,061
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••